Standard or Daylight Savings time debate has implications for at least one religious group

Manitobans are being asked by the provincial government if they want to end seasonal time changes by making either standard or daylight savings time permanent in the province. 

So far, three-quarters of those who answered a survey by Winnipeg-based Prairie Research Associates support an end to seasonal time changes. Of those, 34 per cent prefer a move to permanent daylight time — which means the sun would rise and set later each day. 

Eighteen per cent prefer standard time, while 21 per cent just want the province to choose one time or another. 

Talk about time change got me thinking about how such a change could impact religious groups. 

As it turns out, at least one faith group would experience a serious impact: Judaism. Other groups? Not so much, or at all.

Read what some local rabbis say about why they prefer to stay on Standard Time in my recent Free Press column.

Story of the Doctrine of Discovery complicated, but still worth talking about

The negative impact of colonization on Indigenous people in the Americas is known only too well. So is the role the Roman Catholic Church played in it. That includes what became known as the Doctrine of Discovery — the idea that by “discovering” the Americas, colonizing countries like Spain and Portugal could claim Indigenous land as their own. 

But the story is more complicated than most people realize — and also incomplete without noting opposition from those in the Church during that age of discovery and conquest from Dominican priests and the Vatican itself. 

That included a Papal Bull issued in 1537 that declared Indigenous people must not be deprived of their freedom or lands. This remains the official position of the Roman Catholic Church — it was affirmed in 1987 by Pope John Paul II when he visited Canada. 

Read my recent column on this topic in the Winnipeg Free Press.

Premier's remark about Old versus New Testaments draws reaction from Winnipeg Jewish community and others

If you grew up going to Sunday school and church, you were probably taught that what Christians call the “Old Testament” was a book of rules and laws from a stern and punishing God. The “New Testament,” on the other hand, was about love, mercy and grace—as epitomized by Jesus. 

I don’t know if that was the experience of Manitoba premier Wab Kinew. But it seems like it might have been from when he described the province’s approach to the drug crisis: “Old Testament for the drug dealers, New Testament for the drug users.” 

Unsurprisingly, some Jewish people took exception, even as they cut Kinew some slack for his penchant for shooting from the lip. That’s not how they view their scriptures—which they call the Tanakh—at all. 

Sure, there are commandments and laws in the Hebrew Bible, along with accounts of divine punishment. But those accounts are balanced by messages of God’s mercy and an enduring covenantal relationship—a relationship that is characterized by God’s forgiveness, patience and redemption. 

It all added up to an educational moment, as I noted in my recent Winnipeg Free Press column.

The Canadian census and religion; what does it mean to be religious today?

 
Did you get the long form of the census? If you did, then you are among the 25 per cent of Canadians who had a chance to answer this question about religion: “What is this person’s religion? Indicate a specific denomination or religion, even if this person is not currently a practising member of that group.” 

The second part of that question is problematic for The Centre for Inquiry, one of Canada’s leading Humanist groups. It thinks that second part of the question skews the answer, with the result that there is an overestimation of how many people in Canada are actually religious. 

For the Centre, it's about accuracy. If you aren’t actually practising a religion — if you aren’t attending a place of worship, for example, or donating to help others because of your faith or following religious tenets in other practical ways — can you really say you are religious? The Centre says no, and it wants the question rephrased to: “Are you currently a practising member of whatever you selected?” 

Do you agree? What makes someone religious? 

Read more about this in my recent Free Press column.